Comments on: Are Cosmedix Products Another Scientific Scam

By: thebeautybrains

thebeautybrains — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:48:48 +0000

@Rachel – thanks for your comments. Can you point us to any scientific literature or published studies that support the claim that topically applied D-ascorbic acid behaves any different than L-ascorbic acid? We are not aware of any published reports.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:19:46 +0000

Actually, the idea that isomers are irrelevant in dermatology is completely false. Skin is an organ system with complex chemistry and there is absolutely no reason that it would not be susceptible to the same chemical reactions, harmful or beneficial, as any other organ or organ system. The isomers of ascorbic acid are known to have vastly different effects on the skin. L-ascorbic acid is a potent antioxidant and it also stimulates production of collagen, so it is an ideal ingredient in fighting photoaging. D-ascorbic acid, however, produces free radicals and causes skin dryness and irritation. So a “chirally correct” product containing, for example, only stable l-ascorbic acid and no d-ascorbic acid would be much more effective than a product containing both isomers. Depending on the molecule and the activity of its isomers, having a “chirally correct” product can either be an oddly specific marketing gimmick, or a genuinely beneficial attribute.

By: thebeautybrains

thebeautybrains — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:10:13 +0000

Well, maybe you can look at it as cosmetic companies trying to inject scientific knowledge into society. Sure, they get it mostly wrong but maybe it will make someone look up what it really means and they’ll learn something.

By: Gloria

Gloria — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:25:13 +0000

When I read the question, my first reaction was, WHAT!?!? CHIRALLY CORRECT? -Sigh, the gimmicks cosmetics companies use!!